Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 188 (RAJ)

Mahendra Singh v. Deepi Devi

2018-01-16

DINESH MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 20.02.2001 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I, Jodhpur, wherein learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,15,000/- to the claimant in a death case, arising from the death of one Manohar Lal, as a result of a vehicular accident on 30.08.1996. 2. The Tribunal below while allowing the claim had held the appellant owner of the vehicle as liable and responsible for the amount of compensation, while exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability, however with a direction to pay and recover from the owner. 3. While absolving the Insurance Company of its liability from payment of the compensation, the learned Court below has recorded a finding that the driver of the vehicle was having a license to drive a light motor vehicle, whereas the vehicle involved in the accident was a city bus engaged in Public Transport and was thus a Transport Vehicle. 4. According to the Tribunal below, the driver of the vehicle was not having license to drive Transport Vehicle, there was breach of condition of the policy. 5. The Tribunal held that the vehicle in question fell within the ambit of provisions of Section 10(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, while relying upon a judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court reported in 1996 ACJ 838 in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company vs. Usha. 6. Narrating the facts in brief, Mr. Anil Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant informed the Court that he has neither paid any amount towards the award, nor has he even paid the requisite amount payable under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for maintaining the appeal and the and entire amount pursuant to the award has been paid by the Insurance Company, which of course has not been recovered from him so far. 7. Coming to the merit of the case, Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the issue involved in the present case has been set at rest by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 03.07.2017 in the matter of Mukund Dewanagan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Others. 8. Mr. 7. Coming to the merit of the case, Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the issue involved in the present case has been set at rest by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 03.07.2017 in the matter of Mukund Dewanagan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Others. 8. Mr. Anil Bachhawat, learned counsel appearing for the respondents - Insurance Company submitted that prima facie the issue involved in the present case is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, as correct legal position in relation to the provisions of the Act, has not been brought to the notice of Hon'ble Supreme Court, a review petition against such judgment has been filed and the same is pending consideration. 9. To keep the issue alive, he urged that his argument be at least noticed, if not dealt with; and submitted that w.e.f. 14.11.1994, clause (e) in Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of Motor Vehicles Act was inserted in place of existing clauses (e), (f), (g) & (h) and an exhaustive definition came to be inserted and also, Section 3 was amended simultaneously. He further asserted that Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, defines light motor vehicle, whereas Section 2(47) defines Transport Vehicle, which have been taken as a basis in the above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. But for the purpose of determining the nature of license a separate provision in the form of Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act exists in the Act of 1988, which is required to be considered when it comes to requirement of license. He emphasized that the Court is required to rely upon Section 10 of the Act; as Sections 2(21) & 2(47) of the Act of 1988, only defines the nature of the vehicle. 10. Be that as it may, this Court would not venture into the exercise of pronouncing upon the arguments advanced by Mr. Bachhawat, in face of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mukund Dewangan (supra). The exposition of Hon'ble the Supreme Court on which issue is reproduced here infra:- "46. (I) 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2 (21) read with Section 2 (15) and 2(48). The exposition of Hon'ble the Supreme Court on which issue is reproduced here infra:- "46. (I) 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2 (21) read with Section 2 (15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No. 54/1994. (II) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car nor tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle" as provided in Section 10(2) (d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg or a motor car or tractor or road roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued Under Section 10(2) (d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.03.2001 in the form." 11. Following the law aforesaid. The judgment and award dated 20.02.2001, to the extent of holding the appellant - owner of the vehicle liable, is quashed and set-aside. 12. It is held that the license to drive Light Motor Vehicle, possessed by the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident, was valid for the purpose of driving City-bus in question.